There’s already a de facto supermajority requirement in that you need the senate, which represents states, and the house, which represents people.

Also, it turns out that when the legislature doesn’t act, because it was deliberately hobbled by its designers, you end up with an ultra powerful executive rather than things being left to the states.

It would be better if more Americans recognized the flaws in the design of our system of government instead of quasi-worshipping the Founding Fathers and insisting that any problems are because we are unworthy of their great design.

That’s a valid point. IMO the executive should have been more limited.

> hobbled by its designers

Minor quibble, but the filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. And it was most recently modified in 1975.

The legislature was split in two because it was considered the most dangerous branch. Or at least that’s one of the explanations they gave when arguing for its ratification.

A party gaining the majority but being unable to functionally govern is awful for democratic legitimacy. Why vote when even if your party wins an election, you don't get your preferred policy implemented, even partially?

And beyond that, it lets party politicians who don't really want to have to take hard votes hide behind the procedural hurdles.

Indeed. That results in the political system being bypassed, and so critical progress in America was made by the judiciary, which doesn't have popular support and is vulnerable to court-stacking and now, it appears, bribery.